The structure here at the College of St. Benedict and St. Johns University is very set in stone. We are one community, but separated into two same-sex campuses. All students are treated equally, but we receive different diplomas based on our gender. As time passes, many people raise concerns about this being the best way to structure this institution. Me being one of them. 

Jacques Derrida states in "Structure, Sign, and Play" that there is room for creativity in the post modern world. For my example, I will only use CSB/SJU. It seems to me that there are many structures set in place at this institution that will never allow me, a female, to be equal to my male counterpart at St. Johns University, and vice versa. The two campuses, separate degrees, and the two different stigmas of what a 'Bennie' and 'Johnnie' are all make it extremely hard to challenge the norm here. 

But one needs to stay optimist as Derrida points out. Despite the fact that there are things set in place and that the history and culture of this institution has made it what it is today, Derrida states that new realities can be created and changes can be made. Despite this passion many people have to change the entire structure of CSB/SJU, there are still people who think that the structure is set in place and history has made us this way. They would agree with Lacan, stating that these two campuses should be kept seperate because that is how they were historically viewed and the institution started this way so it should continue to be this way.

I would have to disagree with the Lacan-esque believers and would like to be treated equal to all of the students enrolled at the institution. By not having a degree that also states St. Johns University and not being able to say that, yes, in fact, I do attend St. Johns University as well, half of my college career seems to be erased. By working at SJU, taking classes at SJU (where my major department is located), and spending numerous hours devoted to clubs and organizations at SJU, I feel like part of the community there. But it doesn't show.

By siding with Derrida, I would like to play around with the old structure of CSB/SJU and create something new that encompasses all students. By having more integrated campuses and by receiving a degree from both CSB/SJU would show how my education stemmed from both structures, not just one. 

It is brings in a massive revenue each year, with consumers spending millions or even trillions of dollars watching shows on TV, buying the newest issue of Vogue or Glamour, or spending fifty dollars on something as simple as a tee shirt- the fashion industry.

Growing up, my mom taught me how to make simple purses, blankets, and dresses on the sewing machine which made me quite interested in textiles and fabrics. I have always been intrigued by the fashion world and how it is continuously changing and exactly who is making the decisions that filter all the way down to the consumer buying either skinny jeans or flares. Over the past few years, I have paid more attention to what I wear and what others are putting on themselves. Thinking of my own personal style got me thinking about Lacan and what was discussed in class about the idea of a dis-satisfied "I". 

Objects create desire.

Lacan states this very thought provoking theory in "The Agency of the Letter...". In other words, nobody knows what they truly want. People's desire to attain things, whether material or emotional, is always produced by an object. Whether it be MTV telling us that we all want a rockin' party, a mustang, and Rhianna to sing at our super sweet sixteen birthday party, or going out and buying Skyy Vodka because a handsome man will immediately consider you more desirable and you will attain more sexual pleasure, advertisements telling one what they should want are constantly thrust upon them.

Are the desires felt by objects then considered fake? Does that make the fashion industry an industry completely driven by dis-satisfied thoughts that they themselves created? Well, that makes me a little ashamed to be a contributing factor...

But why do so many people like myself fall into the fashion industry trap of telling themselves that they will be happy if they buy that special skirt or that they will inevitably be more cool if they attain a certain look? Lacan puts it by simply stating that "X creates a wanting I". That "I" is always going to be considered incomplete because it is the human condition to be searching or trying to fully complete oneself. This I is initially constructed through culture. Our own culture telling us we are never fully complete without "X". 

When working on one's 'fashion' or 'style', one almost always feels the need to keep up with the constant changing of what is considered in style and therefore never fully feels complete about the clothes they own. By buying the next cutest item, these consumers are just contributing to the never-ending cycle that they are always going to be a little bit behind on. 

That begs the question: Are the people who don't give a damn about what is 'in' and march to the beat of their own quirky, stylish drum the ones that start the trends? Are the people who have a better grasp on their desires  the ones that make the rest of us exist in a world where we never think we are good enough? Are there people out there that are fully complete and are not affected by objects around them? 

My guess is that those types of people exist where objects are the most limited. In tragically poor areas around the world, the term fashion does not exist because people are too worried about surviving through the night to care about what shirt they have on, if any. 

All this is really making me rethink how I spend my money on clothes and why I hold 'style' and 'fashion' in such a high regard...

This past summer, I spent a month traveling through the Eastern African country of Tanzania. The time I spent there was full of life-changing experiences, amazing memories, elephants, and incredibly wild dreams. Before leaving I had to go to the travel clinic to pick up malaria pills. Upon receiving the pills, my doctors warned me that one of the major side effects of these pills was nightmares. I have never had any crazy or out of the ordinary experiences with dreams before, so instead of getting anxious of this, I was more excited to let my imagination go wild in my dreams.

During the first week or so, my schedule was turned upside down and my sleeping pattern was not regulated. I had not had any vivid dreams yet and forgot about the possibility of having them until the eleventh day there when I woke up in a sweat and gasping for air. My sheets were thrown off the bed and breathing heavily, my dream replayed in my head. I could vividly remember my a woman viciously throwing me onto the ground kicking and punching me. In my dream she was a lunatic trying to kill me, but in real life, this woman is something like a second-mother to me. I was horrified. 

Almost every night these dreams continued. I would wake up terrified because a member of my family or close friend was trying to kill me. I started to fear going to sleep at night to find out who the next murderer would be. In the article The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud makes the distinction between latent content and manifest content. Manifest content is what you actually dreamt, and latent content is the meaning of the dream. Waking up, I would remember all of the manifest content but could not figure out the latent content at all. I had no idea why all of these people who supposedly loved me were out to kill me. Granted, the malaria pills were the reason I was having nightmares, but they didn't choose the content of my dreams. Freud speaks or representation, a thought translated to a visual image, and symbolism, a symbol replaced a an action, person, or idea. Was i thinking that these people truly wanted to kill or did not love me anymore? Did the acting of trying to kill me really mean something totally different?

Since leaving Tanzania, I continued to have nightmares until, I'm assuming, my malaria medication wore off. The vividness and intensity of my dreams were something I have never experienced before, and would wonder how Freud would interpret...since I mylset have no idea why this happened.